| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Ted S. Kanamine | Member | |
| Mr. Conrad V. Meyer | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was given a general discharge for a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) violation while acting as a civilian pilot in a civilian aircraft. He goes on to state that he continued to serve as a military pilot until his expiration of term of service (ETS) and that he has flown jet aircraft for the past 22 years, with over 10,000 hours as both a corporate and commercial pilot. He further states that his discharge has never affected his career as a pilot; however, he is now being considered for a position as an operations inspector with the FAA and an honorable discharge would place him at the top of the selection list. He also states that he believes a general discharge was too severe for one FAA violation and submits five third party letters and a copy of his resume, in support of his application.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 March 1977 for a period of 3 years and warrant officer flight training. He successfully completed his training and was honorably discharged on 24 May 1978, to accept an appointment as a warrant officer.
He was appointed as a Reserve Warrant Officer One (WO1) on 25 May 1978, with a concurrent call to active duty and was transferred to Fort Hood, Texas, for duty as a rotary wing aviator. He was promoted to the rank of chief warrant officer two (CW2) on 25 May 1980.
On 22 September 1980, the applicant’s battalion commander suspended him from flight duty and directed that a flying evaluation board be conducted. He cited as the basis for his actions, that as a result of an FAA investigation, the applicant was found in violation of several FAA regulations that resulted in the revocation of his private pilot’s license.
On 7 October 1980, the applicant’s battalion commander notified the applicant that he was going to recommend that he be eliminated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-100, paragraphs 5-12a and 5-29e, for unacceptable conduct (moral or professional dereliction). He cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant’s repeated disregard for FAA Regulations, Army Regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
On 19 October 1980, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him by the commanding general (CG) for three incidents of falsifying official records (logbooks), over a 3-month period, by certifying that he was a certified flight instrument instructor, which he knew to be false. His punishment consisted of a general officer punitive letter of reprimand that was directed to be filed in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The applicant did not appeal the punishment.
On 23 January 1981, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for resignation in lieu of elimination proceedings, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-120, chapter 4. He also acknowledged that he understood that he could receive either an honorable, general or discharge under other than honorable conditions; however, he requested that his service be considered and that he be recommended for either an honorable or general discharge.
His chain of command recommended approval of his request with the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. His request was approved by a Department of the Army Special Review Board on 3 March 1981, with a General Discharge Certificate to be issued to the applicant.
Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 18 March 1981, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-120, chapter 4, for unacceptable conduct (moral or professional dereliction). He had served 2 years, 9 months and 24 days of active service as a warrant officer and 1 year, 2 months and 7 days of active service in an enlisted status.
There is no indication that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.
The third party letters provided by the applicant are all dated in 1988 and seek to applaud the applicant’s skills as a pilot.
Army Regulation 635-120, served as the authority for resignation in lieu of elimination under Army Regulation 635-100. The regulation in effect at the time provided that an officer who had been selected for elimination from the service by a general court-martial convening authority or who had been selected by a Department of the Army Selection Board for elimination or to show cause why he should not be eliminated pursuant to Army Regulation 635-105, may tender a resignation in lieu of elimination. A characterization of honorable, under honorable conditions or under other than honorable conditions was authorized.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. The applicant’s resignation and discharge were accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations with no indication of any violations of the applicant’s rights.
2. The applicant’s contention that he was discharged as a result of one FAA violation has been noted by the Board and appears to be without merit. The evidence of record indicates that there were multiple violations involved. While they were all of the same nature, the evidence of record indicates that they occurred over a 3-month period.
3. While the applicant may not believe his offenses were serious, he knowingly violated the trust placed in him as a warrant officer and aviator. Accordingly, his chain of command viewed his service as less than fully honorable. After reviewing the evidence in this case, the Board also believes that his service was properly characterized as under honorable conditions.
4. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
5. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__tmc___ ___cvm__ __cla____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002076204 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | YYYYMMDD |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1981/03/18 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-120 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | RESIGNATION/UNACCEPTABLE CDT |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 732 | 144.8000/A80.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007608
On 7 August 1980, the applicant's battalion commander initiated a recommendation for the applicant's elimination from the service in accordance with chapter 5 of Army Regulation 635-100 (Personnel Separations - Officer Personnel) by reason of professional dereliction. On 1 December 1980, the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (now known as the U.S. Army Human Resources Command) approved the applicant's resignation in lieu of elimination for misconduct, moral or professional dereliction,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021235
On 25 July 1985, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) administered by a general officer under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty. An Honorable Discharge Certificate is issued when an officer's discharge is based solely upon substandard performance of duty. The applicant's request for upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge was carefully considered...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013653
Following counseling, he voluntarily tendered his resignation from the Army for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 5 of Army Regulation 635-120 (Officer Resignations and Discharges). Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges), paragraph 122c, provides that a discharge Under Other Than Honorable Conditions is an administrative separation from the service under conditions other than honorable. Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 122b, provides that a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009788
The applicant request, in effect, award of the Master Army Aviator Badge and correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 31 August 1980 to show this badge. The evidence of record shows the applicant was fully qualified for award of the Master Army Aviator Badge; therefore, it would be appropriate to award him this badge and to correct his DD Form 214 for the period ending 31 August 1980 to show award of the Master Army Aviator...
The applicant provided a rebuttal dated 23 Feb 99. Based on the applicant’s appeal and at the request of HQ AFMC/DO, HQ AFMC/JA performed another legal review on 12 Mar 99 and concluded that the FEB findings and recommendations were legally sufficient and recommended denial of the applicant’s request for a new FEB. A review of the FEB transcripts and exhibits by HQ AFMC/JA shows no reason to believe that the board did not properly weigh all testimony presented in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150003183
The applicant provides: a. In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged UOTHC and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100025355
His service was characterized as under other than honorable conditions. On 9 July 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge. He has provided no evidence or a convincing argument to show his discharge should be upgraded and his military records contain no evidence which would entitle him to an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100024960
A memorandum from the William Beaumont Warrior Transition Battalion, dated 20 May 2009, Subject: Statement of Medical Condition and Treatment Plan, shows a request was sent to AHRC to retain the applicant on AD for an additional 180 days to continue treatment for paroxysmal atrial tachycardia and he should make a full recovery. His record is void of evidence to show he was referred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) after his diagnosis of atrial tachycardia and prior to his retirement. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072511C070403
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that the orders which terminated his service and pay as an aviator be revoked, that he be reinstated to active duty as an aviator in military occupational specialty (MOS) 153D, that he be allowed to attend the aviation refresher course and maintenance test pilot (MTP) course at Fort Rucker, Alabama, that he be awarded the Senior Aviator Badge, and that he be paid Aviation Career Incentive Pay (ACIP) for the period of 22 February 1998 to 24 November 1999. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01709
The HQ AFPC/DPAO evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and indicated that the only record stating he was unable to solo within 40 hours due to FTDs and was eliminated from the IFT program if the AETC Form 126A and it is a recommendation. As to the allegation he did not believe he was eliminated from IFT, the applicant signed a...